The election results saw a fair few MPs depart who were associated with legislation of particular despite to Melon Farmers.

Jacqui Smith was Home Secretary seeing through several nasty laws. She was humiliated when seeking re-election in Redditch. More for being an icon of the expenses scandal, than for her disservices to freedom and the enjoyment of life. No doubt the dangers of porn will be uppermost in her mind whenever she reminisces over her failed political career.

In fact it is a common theme amongst the melon farming related departees, that their departure is little to do with their illiberal laws, but more to do with more personal issues. Perhaps Melon Farmers can take heart, that although they seem to get away with treating people like shit with nasty laws, their bad attitude sometimes catches up with them in other ways.

Another Home Secretary with a thuggish attitude to peoples rights was Charles Clarke, who also received the order of the boot. He seems to have wound up people on his own side in his disaster prone term as Home Secretary.

Vera Baird was perhaps the highlight of the departure list. She took a particular interest in issues where enjoyment of life is something to be banned particularly for men. She was always rumoured as being gifted with the legal talent to turn mean minded thoughts into carefully open ended nasty legislation. Perhaps she should have spent a little more time looking after more immediate basic needs in Redcar, where she was well stonked.

The two back bench agitators for the Dangerous Pictures Act, Martin Salter and David Lepper both stepped down at the election. But they can hardly have been pleased at their legacy. Salter was never a great hit as a local MP and Labour got stuffed in Reading West. Lepper’s Brighton Pavilion seat fell notably to the Green Party. (Actually Lepper was reasonably well regarded in Brighton).

One voice that will be missed in parliament though is Evan Harris. He spoke out against the dangerous pictures laws and helped stick the knife into blasphemy laws. He was well embroiled in the expenses scandal though, and was accordingly turfed out by the electorate.

In June 2009 the Ministry of Justice asked us to extend our national Hotline to enable the public to report online non-photographic visual depictions of the sexual abuse of children, covered by Sections 62 to 69 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Following consultation with our Funding Council of industry members, in October 2009 the IWF Board informed government of our agreement to fulfil this role from 6 April 2010.

This means the public can report non-photographic visual depictions, such as computer-generated images, of the sexual abuse of children to the IWF if they are on a UK website. The legislation should only catch material which is already illegal to publish here under the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

The IWF will take further action to have this content removed, in partnership with the police and the hosting provider, if it is hosted in the UK and if we consider it meets all three of the legal criteria

Key points

1. Our role regarding non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse, such as computer-generated images, comprises an extension to our remit as follows:

child sexual abuse images hosted anywhere in the world

criminally obscene adult content hosted in the UK

incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK

non-photographic child sexual abuse images hosted in the UK.

2. The IWF will only address reports concerning such images when they are hosted on UK websites.

3. On those rare occasions where such images are believed to be criminal and are depicted on a website hosted in the UK we will work in partnership with the hosting provider and the police to remove the content and provide information to assist investigations into its distribution.

4. Our industry members can refer to the IWF as a point of expertise for advice on whether such images on their networks are potentially criminal and should be considered for investigation by the police.

5. We will not be compiling a list of websites or URLs depicting these images to enable service providers to block access to them.

6. The IWF has no role in the direct investigation of those involved in the distribution or possession of this content.

(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child.

(2) A prohibited image is an image which—

(a) is pornographic, ie if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
(b) falls within subsection (6), and
(c) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

Note that photographic and near photographic images are not covered by this law as they are already prohibited by other more serious laws.

(6) An image falls within this subsection if it—

(a) is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child’s genitals or anal region, or
(b) portrays any of the acts:

(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;
(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;
(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;
(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;
(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);
(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.

63 Exclusions

An image which forms the whole or part of a classified work is excluded from the prohibition. [Albeit with exceptions where images are separated from justifying context]

64 Defences

(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;
(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be a prohibited image of a child;
(c) that the person—

(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.

65 Meaning of image and child

(2) Image includes—

(a) a moving or still image, or
(b) data which is capable of conversion into an image.

(5) Child means a person under the age of 18.

An image of a child is where:

(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
(b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.

66 Penalties

(a) on summary conviction [at a magistrate’s court], imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months in England and Wales and 6 months Northern Ireland or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment [at a crown court], imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine, or both.

The UK Government bill introduced a clause in Coroners and Justice Bill to criminalise the possession of non photographic but pornographic images of children with draconian penalties of up to 3 years in prison.

This bill has now cleared all parliamentary hurdles with hardly any meaningful debate whatsoever. A couple of half hearted concerns that the bill may criminalise thousands of innocent people (Eg Hentai fans) were glossed over on a one in million possibility that paedophiles may work around existing prohibitions via use of animation.

Yesterday the Government was forced to accept Tory Peer Lord Waddington’s free speech clause which says that criticising homosexual conduct is not, in itself, a crime.

An offence of inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation was introduced by the Government last year, but the free speech defence, strongly opposed by the House of Commons, was inserted by former Home Secretary Waddington.

The latest round of votes took place this week with MPs voting to delete the clause on Monday and Peers voting to keep it.

Peers supported the clause by 179 votes to 135. In the House of Commons the Justice Secretary Jack Straw accepted the Lords vote. A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said the government was very disappointed at the Lords vote, adding: There is no doubt about the threshold of this offence. No freedom of expression section is needed to explain it. The threshold is a high one. The offence only covers words or behaviour that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred.

But she added the government could no longer delay the passage of the Coroners Bill. It is with considerable disappointment, therefore, that the government has agreed not to remove the freedom of expression section.

Baroness O’Cathain is a Tory Lord. According to Wikipedia she is Irish born convent educated Catholic: She is known for her socially conservative views, in particular her efforts to retain the ban on same-sex couples from adopting, and has taken on a leadership role in the movement after the death of Lady Young.

She has proposed a couple of amendments to teh Dangerous Cartoons clause of the Coroners & Injustice Bill which criminalises the possession of pornographic cartoons depicting under 18s.

O’Cathain firstly suggests the removal of the clause giving people protection from prosecution from material approved by the BBFC.

Secondly she proposes a new clause:

Possession of extreme pornographic writings

(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of extreme pornographic writing.

(2) “Extreme pornographic writing” is writing which is both—

(a) pornographic, and
(b) extreme writing.

(3) Writing is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

(4) Where (as found in the person’s possession) the writing forms part of a series of writings, the question whether the writing is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to—

(a) the writing itself, and
(b) (if the series of writings is such as to be capable of providing a context for the writing) the context in which it occurs in the series of writings.

(5) So, for example, where—

(a) the writing forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of writings, and
(b) having regard to those writings as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, the writing may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.

(6) “Extreme writing” is writing which—

(a) falls within subsection (7), and
(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

(7) Writing falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), and a reasonable person looking at the writing would think that any portrayal of such person or animal was realistic.

(8) In this section “writing” means written words (including but not limited to those published or otherwise available on the internet), books, leaflets or other printed matter.

(9) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).

(10) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—

(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or
(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.”

Such was the interest in the suicide amendment that debate dragged on well past the point when their Lordships usually adjourned for their supper. House business, which usually takes place at half seven, was delayed until twenty past eight, when a stampede of hungry Lords headed for their canteen. Debate on the Coroners’ Bill did not resume until an hour later.

Sadly for the Baroness, New Labour reforms to the way parliament works means that the Lords now shut up shop at 10 pm – and debate on amendments cannot carry on between sessions without prior agreement between parties. Although not the case in this instance, the streamlining of parliamentary business through excess guillotining of debate has been bitterly resisted by opposition parties, who claim that important legislation is now passed with little or no formal scrutiny.

The Baroness’ amendment was eventually called at three minutes to ten – at which point she appears to have decided it was not worth putting, and did not stand up to propose it.